Why Do Longtermists Care about Protecting the Environment? An Investigation on the Underlying Mechanisms of Pro-Climate Policy Support

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript by Law et al. aims to investigate the motives of so-called „Longtermists“ with regards to climate change. Longermists want to change the world focusing on longterm risks. The philosophy is briefly explained in chapter 1.1 where the authors state that longtermists assume a continued global population increase (line 51: „(2) there could be a vast number of future people).

Whilst the general question investigated in the study is valid, the paper reads more like a lobbyism product than a scuientific study. Already the introduction is fully of catastrophism and alarmism. It is clear that climate change is a main challenge of modern times. On the other hand, there are solutions and technology that can help tackle the issues in a systematic way. What the authors forget to mention is that there are numerous other challenges in the world, e.g. captured by the UN development goals. https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals

Whilst focusing almost entirely on longterm visions, longtermists appear to forget that challeges like „no poverty“, „zero hunger“, „quality education“ and „clean water and sanitation“ are short and medium term goals that require at least teh amount of attention than longterm goals.

The manuscript takes a one-sided and non-scientific position for the longermists and fails to strike the right balance. There is hardly any criticism of longermists thinking and behaviour. One possible argument could be that longermists largely ignore the problems of today and focus on an uncertain future. Even the AR6 report of the IPCC, that the authors cite in the Introduction, emphasizes the large uncertainties that still remain with future projections.

The Longermist philosophy assumes a continuous growth in world population. Why is no action proposed to reduce the population growth? It is clear that overpopulation is one of the key challenges of the longterm future. Longterists appear to accept the population growth in a fatalistic way and rather concentrate on more philosophical issues of climate change.

It seems to be that the authors fail to keep a sound distance to the subject they investigate. It cannot be ruled out that they belong to the longtermist group themselves. This may explain the absence of any critical words on longtermists views. The study lacks balance. Have any of the authors belonged to activist groups, either in the past or today? This should be clearly stated in the compliance section.

The authors should have also explained better the soure of their interview data. The study appears to be based on answers from a paid panel on the platform Prolific. I assume it is this one: https://www.prolific.com/ No reference is given, how this platform works. Is payment for filling out forms a good basis for representative views? How can we be sure that the questions for the interviews were phrased in a neutral way and not biased towards a desired outcome? The questions should be provided as Supplement.

Summed up, I do not see any scientific merit in the study which appears one-sided and feels more like a lobby article.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 Comments:

This manuscript by Law et al. aims to investigate the motives of so-called „Longtermists“ with regards to climate change. Longermists want to change the world focusing on longterm risks. The philosophy is briefly explained in chapter 1.1 where the authors state that longtermists assume a continued global population increase (line 51: „(2) there could be a vast number of future people).

Whilst the general question investigated in the study is valid, the paper reads more like a lobbyism product than a scuientific study. Already the introduction is fully of catastrophism and alarmism. It is clear that climate change is a main challenge of modern times. On the other hand, there are solutions and technology that can help tackle the issues in a systematic way. What the authors forget to mention is that there are numerous other challenges in the world, e.g. captured by the UN development goals. https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals

Whilst focusing almost entirely on longterm visions, longtermists appear to forget that challeges like „no poverty“, „zero hunger“, „quality education“ and „clean water and sanitation“ are short and medium term goals that require at least teh amount of attention than longterm goals.

The manuscript takes a one-sided and non-scientific position for the longermists and fails to strike the right balance. There is hardly any criticism of longermists thinking and behaviour. One possible argument could be that longermists largely ignore the problems of today and focus on an uncertain future. Even the AR6 report of the IPCC, that the authors cite in the Introduction, emphasizes the large uncertainties that still remain with future projections. The Longermist philosophy assumes a continuous growth in world population. Why is no action proposed to reduce the population growth? It is clear that overpopulation is one of the key challenges of the longterm future. Longterists appear to accept the population growth in a fatalistic way and rather concentrate on more philosophical issues of climate change.

We are thankful for Reviewer 1’s constructive feedback and embrace the chance to enhance our manuscript accordingly. We concur that beyond climate change and future-focused issues, a host of immediate and intermediate challenges – like poverty, hunger, education, water access, and sanitation – also merit attention. Recognizing that our original submission might not have adequately balanced the presentation of longtermism, we have revised our manuscript to more comprehensively address these pressing concerns and to bring a more equitable perspective to our discourse.

First, we have provided more context for the longtermism philosophy in section 1.1. Specifically, we now emphasize longtermism’s close relationship with the effective altruism movement, which focuses primarily on mitigating near- and medium-term threats, such as those insightfully outlined by the Reviewer above. We hope our acknowledgement of near- and medium-term challenges early in the manuscript will convey to readers that such challenges are worth consideration in efforts to improve global welfare. Please see below:

“Longtermism, as a philosophical approach, has its roots in the closely associated ethical philosophy and social movement known as effective altruism, which emphasizes the importance of using evidence-based methods to maximize global welfare through philanthropic activities.^5,14,15  Whereas effective altruism primarily places emphasis on mitigating pressing present-day challenges, such as global poverty, widespread hunger, and preventable disease, longtermism places emphasis on mitigating threats which have the potential to cause harm to future generations ^6,7,16.” (Page 2)

Additionally, in the updated Section 1.1, we delve into the critical arguments against longtermism, specifically highlighting two main critiques: firstly, the philosophy's potential oversight of current generational needs in favor of future benefits, and secondly, its allocation of significant resources to what may be largely hypothetical future challenges. Please see below for these passages:

“Nonetheless, longtermism is not without criticisms, many of which may have considerable philosophical and pragmatic merit. Principal among criticisms of longtermism is that its adherents may prioritize future well-being at the expense of undervaluing challenges which are already putting strain on people who are presently living ^23,24.” (Page 2)

“Another significant critique of longtermism lies in the unpredictability of future challenges and their potential solutions ^4,25. Consequently, allocating resources to address these uncertainties carries an inherent risk. This criticism is certainly not entirely unfounded. The longtermism movement places considerable emphasis on preventing risks associated with emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, which come along with tremendous predictive volatility^26,27. (Page 2)

While we recognize the critiques leveled against longtermism, our analysis critically examines them to demonstrate how, notwithstanding these critiques, longtermist beliefs could still offer valuable insights into understanding climate-related attitudes and behaviors. Notably, empirical evidence suggests that individuals who prioritize future-oriented issues are also more concerned with immediate societal challenges than people who do not prioritize future-oriented issues. We contend that climate change poses challenges not only for future people, but the current generation as well. For a more nuanced treatment of these views, we direct the Reviewer and Editor to the ensuing discussion from section 1.1 of the introduction:

 “Nonetheless, longtermism is not without criticisms, many of which may have considerable philosophical and pragmatic merit. Principal among criticisms of longtermism is that its adherents may prioritize future well-being at the expense of undervaluing challenges which are already putting strain on people who are presently living ^23,24. Indeed, some adherents of longtermism, recognizing the potential for humanity to endure for millennia, and consequently the possibility of a future population exceeding today’s, might prioritize addressing challenges that pose existential risks over those that mitigate present-day harm ¹⁶. Yet, research on support for longtermist principles among the general populace shows that proponents of the philosophy’s fundamental tenets do not necessarily exhibit a bias towards future generations at the expense of those currently suffering. On the contrary, they often show increased moral consideration for those who are socially distant and marginalized in today’s society, more so than what is observed in non-longtermist controls¹⁰. However, it should be noted that it is currently unknown whether formal adherents of the longtermism movement share this view.

Another significant critique of longtermism lies in the unpredictability of future challenges and their potential solutions ^4,25. Consequently, allocating resources to address these uncertainties carries an inherent risk. This criticism is certainly not entirely unfounded. The longtermism movement places considerable emphasis on preventing risks associated with emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, which come along with tremendous predictive volatility^26,27. Notwithstanding, the challenges posed by climate change are not only a threat to the well-being of future generations; they are already adversely affecting the current population ^4,28–30. Moreover, climate-related risks are likely more foreseeable and manageable compared to the emerging risks of artificial intelligence, which is only beginning to reach a level that presents significant challenges to humanity. Additionally, solutions to climate change have been the subject of extensive research, further refining our approach to mitigating these risks in a tractable manner^31,32. Thus, despite criticisms of longtermism as promoting neglect of present challenges and focusing its efforts on indeterminant challenges with tenuous solutions, of particular importance to the present investigation is that individuals who align strongly with longtermism show a robust pattern of heightened beliefs regarding the existence and importance of climate change, attitudes towards pro-environmental public policies, and pro-environmental behaviors (e.g., donations)^12,13. Currently, the psychological mechanisms that fuel the enhanced environmentalism observed in longtermists remain elusive. However, existing psychological inquiry probing environmental attitudes and behaviors suggest several potential pathways through which longtermists may experience enhancements in these areas.” (Pages 2-3)

Furthermore, in our discussion on criticisms of longtermism philosophy, we now draw explicit attention to the longtermist position on population ethics. Please see below:

“Indeed, some adherents of longtermism, recognizing the potential for humanity to endure for millennia, and consequently the possibility of a future population exceeding today’s, might prioritize addressing challenges that pose existential risks over those that mitigate present-day harm ¹⁶.” (Page 2)

We must concede that our understanding of why leading figures in longtermism favor certain population ethics over advocating for population growth control is limited by a lack of data. However, some prominent longtermism proponents suggest that maximizing the number of individuals leading satisfactory lives may yield a greater collective well-being than a smaller population experiencing exceptional pleasure (see this link for a relevant discussion from an interview with William MacAskill). This view potentially aligns with values regarding population ethics associated at times with the longtermism movement, though this isn’t necessarily or invariably characteristic of all individuals that wish to promote long-term human welfare.

It seems to be that the authors fail to keep a sound distance to the subject they investigate. It cannot be ruled out that they belong to the longtermist group themselves. This may explain the absence of any critical words on longtermists views. The study lacks balance. Have any of the authors belonged to activist groups, either in the past or today? This should be clearly stated in the compliance section.

It is important to emphasize that our investigation as behavioral scientists into the factors influencing and the outcomes resulting from longtermist beliefs is not an endorsement of such views. Additionally, we affirm that we do not have any conflicts of interest or financial involvement with the longtermism movement. In revising our manuscript, we have conscientiously adjusted the language to avoid suggesting normative judgements about longtermism principles.

The authors should have also explained better the soure of their interview data. The study appears to be based on answers from a paid panel on the platform Prolific. I assume it is this one: https://www.prolific.com/ No reference is given, how this platform works. Is payment for filling out forms a good basis for representative views? How can we be sure that the questions for the interviews were phrased in a neutral way and not biased towards a desired outcome? The questions should be provided as Supplement.

We have now added a description and citation for Prolific Academic when it is first introduced in section 2.1 of the manuscript. Please see below:

“A total of 800 participants were recruited via Prolific⁷⁴, an online platform designed for academic research that provides access to a diverse pool of engaged participants who participate in research in exchange for remuneration.” (Page 7)

We would also like to kindly direct the Reviewer to the link we have included to our OSF.io page. In our strong commitment to open science practices, we have been sure to include the full text of our survey. Please see below:

“All data, questionnaires, and code for the investigation are available on the Open Science Framework (OSF), https://osf.io/a9fe5/?view_only=c3702d53f0214311a3b0360c6a61f63a. The pre-registration for this study is available on AsPredicted, https://aspredicted.org/6GC_V42.” (Page 7)

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very good paper. Only, there are two different Table 3 what must be corrected.

page 7. Probably, the use of different scales should be a bit more explained

page 13. Table 4. All "b" values are arithmetic mean of intervals

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2 Comments:

Very good paper.

We appreciate the Reviewer’s positive assessment of the research presented in the manuscript.

Only, there are two different Table 3 what must be corrected.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this inconsistency and have corrected this error.

page 7. Probably, the use of different scales should be a bit more explained

We have added more descriptive language in Section 2.2 to detail our usage of different scales. Please see below:

“Participants completed the following measures to capture the primary predictor, longtermism beliefs, the primary outcomes, assessing pro-climate policy support, as well as the four hypothesized mediators.” (Page 7)

page 13. Table 4. All "b" values are arithmetic mean of intervals

Regarding the comment on Table 4 (Table 5 in the revised manuscript), we’d like to clarify that the “b” values are presented as point estimates (specifically of regression slopes) accompanied by their corresponding confidence intervals. It is inherent that these point estimates align with the averages of the confidence limits. We appreciate your diligence in examining our results, and we hope this clarifies our reporting methodology, which is consistent with standard practices for reporting estimates of population parameters.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors used a consistent number of participants in applying a questionnaire (784 subjects, USA) and checked some hypotheses. 

They explored some psychological mechanisms that motivate individuals to embrace and advocate sustainable collective measures for a sustainable society. The authors investigated the mechanisms that link longtermism beliefs to pro-environmental outcomes.

Their results show a strong correlation between long-termism and pro-climate attitudes. This demonstrates that long-termists strongly support a wide range of pro-environmental policies, particularly those concentrating on climate justice for marginalized groups in current and future generations.

Long-termists have heightened future-oriented concern for themselves and others, and their expanded prosocial reach elevates their environmentalism above and beyond the influence of demographic differences or other mediating factors. Their findings provide a framework for building more significant pro-environmental involvement. 

I have only one recommendation: Check the first column of Table 1. It is not looking well. Also, from what I know, the references in the text need to be written in journal style. Please check.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3 Comments:

The authors used a consistent number of participants in applying a questionnaire (784 subjects, USA) and checked some hypotheses. 

They explored some psychological mechanisms that motivate individuals to embrace and advocate sustainable collective measures for a sustainable society. The authors investigated the mechanisms that link longtermism beliefs to pro-environmental outcomes.

Their results show a strong correlation between long-termism and pro-climate attitudes. This demonstrates that long-termists strongly support a wide range of pro-environmental policies, particularly those concentrating on climate justice for marginalized groups in current and future generations.

Long-termists have heightened future-oriented concern for themselves and others, and their expanded prosocial reach elevates their environmentalism above and beyond the influence of demographic differences or other mediating factors. Their findings provide a framework for building more significant pro-environmental involvement. 

I have only one recommendation: Check the first column of Table 1. It is not looking well. Also, from what I know, the references in the text need to be written in journal style. Please check.

We thank the Reviewer for their valuable feedback and positive assessment of our research. We have modified the table formatting and have made sure our citations are in ACS style.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript deals with an interesting research topic, having attractive research objectives and a well organized analysis. However, there are points of further consideration and improvements, prior it to be accepted for publication and, to this end, the following review comments can be considered.

 

1. In my opinion the conducted survey sustains fundamental structural and operational constraints:

 

-The average age was roughly 40 years old (M = 39.72, SD = 13.32) implies that almost 20 years younger and 20 years older group ages were either excluded, or under-represented in the survey, which is a scientific fault.

 

-The study duration was approximately 12 minutes, and participants received $2.00 for their participation, implies that there was not a instantaneous self-motivation of participating, but an even small money reward, making the surveying process to sound biased and subjective. The self-motivation and the free of rewards policy of survey could be considered more objective and unbiased/neutral.

 

2. Both sections of 1. Introduction and 4. Discussion cannot merely focused on the Longtermism and Environmentalism debate and criticism, but to be further expanded on investigating the underlying mechanisms of pro-climate policy support in the US in terms of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation and climate neutrality policies/measures/directives/regulations/initiatives. For this, both these two sections can be enriched and upgraded accordignly. There is also plentiful research production on these new topics to be included in the literature. To mention indicative 2 of them, you could consider and cite that of:

 

 

Kyriakopoulos G.L.,Sebos I. (2023). Enhancing Climate Neutrality and Resilience through Coordinated Climate Action: Review of the Synergies between Mitigation and Adaptation Actions. Climate 11(5),105. DOI: 10.3390/cli11050105.

 

 

Kyriakopoulos G.L.,Sebos I.,Triantafyllou E.,Stamopoulos D.,Dimas P. (2023). Benefits and Synergies in Addressing Climate Change via the Implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy in Greece. Applied Sciences 13(4),2216. DOI: 10.3390/app13042216.

 

3. I am not sure but the “Category”, “Hypothesized Mediator” and “Outcome” mentioned in Tables 1 and 2 could be highly affiliated and interlinked with leadership and motivational theories, as well as with leadership styles: democratic, laisser-faire, authoritarian,…. If so it would be interesting if in the Discussion section authors could develop a succinct and coherent discussion of how and to what extend these terms: “ Longtermism and Environmentalism” with that of leadership style and motivational theories are convergent and associated to each other. In any case the text length of the Discussion section has to be reorganized into 2-3 subheadings, revealing the key-aspects of consideration and importance, as those have been emerged from the analysis and findings.

 

4. Besides to, and considering, the above review comments a text extension of up to one and cross-cited text page, for both Introduction, Discussion, sections is recommended.

 

5. Based on the following statement: “Moreover, these findings align with emerging  evidence suggesting longtermists, compared to non-longtermist controls, extend greater moral regard not only to future generations, but to present-day socially distant targets as well. These patterns come more clearly into focus in light of another existing line of inquiry revealing substantial overlap in the processing mechanisms for temporal and social distance”, authors are recommended to forecast and to expand their findingins beyond the US context, drawing solutions of generalized truth and applicability to similar social-environmental disputes and debates at an international level of analysis. For this 2-3 concluding sentences at the Conclusions sections are welcome.

Author Response

Reviewer 4 Comments:

1. In my opinion the conducted survey sustains fundamental structural and operational constraints:

-The average age was roughly 40 years old (M = 39.72, SD = 13.32) implies that almost 20 years younger and 20 years older group ages were either excluded, or under-represented in the survey, which is a scientific fault.

We are grateful for the Reviewer’s focus on ensuring that our sample accurately reflects the demographic composition of the U.S. population. That being said, we consider the alignment of our sample’s average age of 39.72 years with the U.S. median age of 38.9 years, as reported by the latest U.S. Census Bureau data from 2022, not as a flaw, but as a feature that strengthens the representativeness of our study.

-The study duration was approximately 12 minutes, and participants received $2.00 for their participation, implies that there was not a instantaneous self-motivation of participating, but an even small money reward, making the surveying process to sound biased and subjective. The self-motivation and the free of rewards policy of survey could be considered more objective and unbiased/neutral.

We value the Reviewer’s attention to our practice of providing cash incentives to participants, which compensates them for their contributions. Our Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol mandates participant remuneration. Additionally, existing literature supports that such incentives do not compromise the integrity of survey data, but in fact improves attentive responding (see Cole et al., 2020; Jaeger & Cardello, 2022). It is also worth noting that the compensation rate offered to participants in our study is in line with the accepted standards on the Prolific platform and meets the U.S. minimum wage guidelines for per-hour wages.

2. Both sections of 1. Introduction and 4. Discussion cannot merely focused on the Longtermism and Environmentalism debate and criticism, but to be further expanded on investigating the underlying mechanisms of pro-climate policy support in the US in terms of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation and climate neutrality policies/measures/directives/regulations/initiatives. For this, both these two sections can be enriched and upgraded accordignly. There is also plentiful research production on these new topics to be included in the literature. To mention indicative 2 of them, you could consider and cite that of:

Kyriakopoulos G.L.,Sebos I. (2023). Enhancing Climate Neutrality and Resilience through Coordinated Climate Action: Review of the Synergies between Mitigation and Adaptation Actions. Climate 11(5),105. DOI: 10.3390/cli11050105.

Kyriakopoulos G.L.,Sebos I.,Triantafyllou E.,Stamopoulos D.,Dimas P. (2023). Benefits and Synergies in Addressing Climate Change via the Implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy in Greece. Applied Sciences 13(4),2216. DOI: 10.3390/app13042216.

We thank the Reviewer for this comment, but believe our manuscript already extensively addresses the mechanisms driving support for pro-climate policies in the U.S., where we have identified and elaborated on four potential mechanisms, thoroughly examining the literature that establishes their relevance to climate attitudes and actions. For a concise overview of this literature, we refer readers to Table 1. Nonetheless, we are grateful to the Reviewer for highlighting pertinent research which had previously escaped our notice. While we acknowledge the significance of this literature, it primarily centers on Greece, a country with substantial variability in its climate policy compared to the United States. Given this contextual difference and the already extensive length of our manuscript, we have chosen not to include citations to these articles.

3. I am not sure but the “Category”, “Hypothesized Mediator” and “Outcome” mentioned in Tables 1 and 2 could be highly affiliated and interlinked with leadership and motivational theories, as well as with leadership styles: democratic, laisser-faire, authoritarian,…. If so it would be interesting if in the Discussion section authors could develop a succinct and coherent discussion of how and to what extend these terms: “ Longtermism and Environmentalism” with that of leadership style and motivational theories are convergent and associated to each other.

We recognize the potential value in investigating the relationship between constructs related to leadership style and those presented in our manuscript. However, it is important to note that, to our knowledge, there is limited existing literature that explores the intersection of our hypothesized mediators or outcome variables with traits commonly associated with leadership or leadership styles. After conducting an additional mini-review during the revision process and considering the scope of our paper, we have made the decision not to include these arguments in our revised manuscript.

Furthermore, we recognize that the terms “longtermism” and “environmentalism” are not synonymous. “Longtermism” refers to a philosophical movement, as discussed in our Introduction, while “environmentalism” was inaccurately and excessively used in our original submission to represent general pro-environmental concerns. In response, we have revised our manuscript to avoid using the term “environmentalism” and instead employ terms commonly utilized in environmental psychology, such as “pro-environmental engagement,” “sustainability,” “environmental concern,” “support for climate policy,” and others that accurately capture the constructs we are addressing.

In any case the text length of the Discussion section has to be reorganized into 2-3 subheadings, revealing the key-aspects of consideration and importance, as those have been emerged from the analysis and findings.

We appreciate this feedback and have accordingly added two additional sub-headings to the Discussion section to improve the structure and clarity of the manuscript: (1) 4.1. Exploring the Mechanisms of Pro-Environmentalism in Longtermism, and (2) 4.2 Limitations and Future Directions

4. Besides to, and considering, the above review comments a text extension of up to one and cross-cited text page, for both Introduction, Discussion, sections is recommended.

In correspondence to this recommendation, we have added 1.5 pages of text to the manuscript. Please see below with the added sections appearing in light blue typeface:

“Longtermism, as a philosophical approach, has its roots in the closely associated ethical philosophy and social movement known as effective altruism, which emphasizes the importance of using evidence-based methods to maximize global welfare through philanthropic activities.^5,14,15 . Whereas effective altruism primarily places emphasis on mitigating pressing present-day challenges, such as global poverty, widespread hunger, and preventable disease, longtermism places emphasis on mitigating threats which have the potential to cause harm to future generations ^6,7,16. Specifically, longtermism is grounded in three foundational principles: (1) future people matter, (2) there could be a vast number of future people, and (3) the actions we take in the present-day can positively influence the lives of future generations^5–7. Longtermism encourages collective efforts to diminish existential risks, including those associated with climate change, as extensively argued in prevailing philosophical discourse. However, uncertainty lingers regarding the extent to which the majority concurs with the principles of longtermism. Pivotal findings from behavioral economics^17–21 and burgeoning investigations into moral future-thinking¹¹ in the psychological literature illustrate a prevalent inclination to undervalue the welfare and moral rights of future generations. Mirroring this inclination, the social movement advocating longtermism remains notably modest in scale²². However, emerging research employing the Longtermism Beliefs Scale (LBS) to measure alignment with the philosophy’s principles is beginning to reveal that approximately 25% of individuals consistently express strong ideological alignment with longtermist ideals across numerous, well-powered studies ^9–12. This research implies a discrepancy between explicit support for the longtermism movement and the wider acceptance of its principles within the general population.

Nonetheless, longtermism is not without criticisms, many of which may have considerable philosophical and pragmatic merit. Principal among criticisms of longtermism is that its adherents may prioritize future well-being at the expense of undervaluing challenges which are already putting strain on people who are presently living ^23,24. Indeed, some adherents of longtermism, recognizing the potential for humanity to endure for millennia, and consequently the possibility of a future population exceeding today’s, might prioritize addressing challenges that pose existential risks over those that mitigate present-day harm ¹⁶. Yet, research on support for longtermist principles among the general populace shows that proponents of the philosophy’s fundamental tenets do not necessarily exhibit a bias towards future generations at the expense of those currently suffering. On the contrary, they often show increased moral consideration for those who are socially distant and marginalized in today’s society, more so than what is observed in non-longtermist controls¹⁰. However, it should be noted that it is currently unknown whether formal adherents of the longtermism movement share this view.

Another significant critique of longtermism lies in the unpredictability of future challenges and their potential solutions ^4,25. Consequently, allocating resources to address these uncertainties carries an inherent risk. This criticism is certainly not entirely unfounded. The longtermism movement places considerable emphasis on preventing risks associated with emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, which come along with tremendous predictive volatility^26,27. Notwithstanding, the challenges posed by climate change are not only a threat to the well-being of future generations; they are already adversely affecting the current population ^4,28–30. Moreover, climate-related risks are likely more foreseeable and manageable compared to the emerging risks of artificial intelligence, which is only beginning to reach a level that presents significant challenges to humanity. Additionally, solutions to climate change have been the subject of extensive research, further refining our approach to mitigating these risks in a tractable manner^31,32. Thus, despite criticisms of longtermism as promoting neglect of present challenges and focusing its efforts on indeterminant challenges with tenuous solutions, of particular importance to the present investigation is that individuals who align strongly with longtermism show a robust pattern of heightened beliefs regarding the existence and importance of climate change, attitudes towards pro-environmental public policies, and pro-environmental behaviors (e.g., donations)^12,13.” (Pages 2-3)

5. Based on the following statement: “Moreover, these findings align with emerging evidence suggesting longtermists, compared to non-longtermist controls, extend greater moral regard not only to future generations, but to present-day socially distant targets as well. These patterns come more clearly into focus in light of another existing line of inquiry revealing substantial overlap in the processing mechanisms for temporal and social distance”, authors are recommended to forecast and to expand their findings beyond the US context, drawing solutions of generalized truth and applicability to similar social-environmental disputes and debates at an international level of analysis. For this 2-3 concluding sentences at the Conclusions sections are welcome.

The Reviewer offers a wonderful and important point. As such, we have added two sentences at the end of our Conclusions section to point towards future research to investigate whether there is cross-national consistency in the findings of the present study. Please see below:

“While we have shed light on certain psychological mechanisms that underlie pro-environmental attitudes and actions within a U.S. sample, it's important to recognize that climate change is a worldwide issue. Therefore, future research should investigate whether there is a convergence of mechanisms that support pro-climate attitudes across diverse cultures, societies, and nations. Nonetheless, the present findings pave the way for ongoing inquiry to harness these psychological mechanisms for the sake of promoting a more promising and sustainable tomorrow.” (Page 18)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have taken my comments into account and modified the mansucript accordingly. The paper is now ready to be published.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been satisfactorily revised, thus, it can be accepted for publication at the Sustainability journal as is.